Another screwy thought

Assume that 'c' and the arrow has a equivalence, then consider a black hole. You stand far away from the event horizon measuring a infalling object. Now translate the information you get from the 'photons bouncing/sent back'. What happens with those photons as they find their way out from the gravitational 'field' to your measuring device, do they clump together (blueshift) or spread out (redshift)? What I do here is to assume that a blue shift can be translated into a lot of photons 'clumped together' spatially, as defined by you, with a redshift expressing the opposite situation.

Why I'm asking is because if 'c' and 'the arrow' is equivalent then that equivalence should exist in all situations, and also be able to be described in form of 'time dilations' as perceived by the far observer. Partially I'm thinking of the Planck definition of lights propagation and also about 'c' itself. Don't know what sense this question make but my thinking goes as if the arrow is a description of the room, then a 'time dilation' also should be able to be seen as a description of the room you observe.

'c' is a invariant balanced relative the room, as well as the arrow of time you measure. And all of it relative 'locality' namely 'the observer'. And when something 'redshift' the room observed could be expressed as changing (growing) for you, and so become 'compressed' relative you with a blue shift.

And no, you don't have to take me seriously

But I like it somehow.

=

in a way this question is also about what consist a 'motion'?

=

Now imagine light falling in, you at rest relative it. Should it blue/red shift? Not as I think, the room-time geometry for a uniformly moving object should therefore be the exact same in all situations, following a geodesic.

=

Rereading it, this one is frustrating to me, with different (relative) uniform motion you must get different local blue shifts, as well as the gravitational blue shift. Looking at it this way, also assuming that description to be one between frames of reference, it should put more 'energy' into your system the faster your relative motion. Assuming this you get a situation where all celestial object must have their own definition of distance and 'energy' available in the system. Even if assuming the sun moving with you you still will have those distant ones changing their energy output relative your solar systems motion. So I must be wrong above, but then again, I'm not sure what I meant there

If we consider a whole Solar system, can we then define that as one 'frame of reference'?

Looking at it again I think I thought of it from the idea of the room being related to what energy you measure locally from radiation, so assuming that there should be some way of excepting uniform motion from it, as we use that description as equivalent frames, no matter what speed you measure. The question here is, are they really 'equivalent', if you can relate it locally to blue and red shifts? And you must be able to do so if we ever will have a notion of how to measure a, local, speed, closing in on lights. If there is no way to differ uniform motion locally, then blue and red shifts can't be defining a speed either.

You really need to read this closely

It is about how you will define yourself as closing in on lights speed in a vacuum. In this case reasoning about it, a speed becomes a definition relative some other objects, aka frames of reference, not about being able to measure a speed inside a same frame of reference. Meaning that using blue and red shifts locally still will be comparison between frames of reference. But it also question what a 'speed' then means? Does it exist?

What one can use to define a equivalent frame of reference is black box scenarios, you enclosed inside that box doing a experiment. And in that motto all uniform motion are inseparable from each other. So you observing light must then, per definition, become a comparison between frames of reference, and so also relative. But how to fit that to the idea of you being able to measure blue shifts locally, related to your so called 'relative' uniform motion? Can you see my point here? It's a contradiction in terms to me, to be able to measure something (local blueshift) from that defining myself getting closer to the speed of light, at the same time as defining it as a 'relative motion'.

How do you define yourself, relative what? We have one frame locally to compare ourselves against, that is radiation. It's the frame creating 'relativity' and locally invariant for all frames of reference. How do you measure? What do you need? Radiation, and if that is what you use? Isn't that a definition of locality? I can assume a black box scenario, but to do the experiment you will need radiation. Will that radiation 'locally' inside the box fit the radiation outside it? No, it will not, inside the box the light bulb moves with you and your box, outside it comes from those distant stars that seemingly are 'standing still' relative you, as they are so very far away, and there the blue red shift will be considerable depending on your (relative) motion versus those. Would you define the inside of that box as a 'same frame of reference'? Maybe? If so, can you define what relative (uniform) speed you have, from inside that box, using the light from that light bulb? No, you can't. But? What then makes us able to define ourselves as closing in on light speed? If this is the definition of a uniform motion? Think about it.

So what do you use to prove a 'motion'? Those distant stars radiation? The CBR? And what does your 'motion' do to those frames of reference? And, are you really moving at all inside that black box?

It's about light and motion.

=

Let me put it another way, using 'displacements' and 'absolute motion' relative 'light clocks'. Think of your retina and the light bulb as a 'light clock' of sorts. The light wanders from the light bulb to your eye, assuming that there exist a real 'absolute' motion your box are moving in space as the light wanders. Assuming you at the aft, the light bulb at the front of the box motion this means that there will be a displacement if observed by someone being 'at rest' relative whatever origin you had before starting to move. To those observing the light from behind, outside the box, it must have to traverse more space than you find it to have, as you and the light bulb are at rest with each other, being 'still' relative each other. That as you are moving through space according to them, even though not noticeable for you. At the same time you will be seen as 'rushing' towards that light from their frame of reference, but it's wrong to assume that they will see this as a blue shift, to them it will be a red shift, as you both are moving away from them. So will it be a blue shift to you then? Well if there is a absolute motion it should, shouldn't it? But it's not, that light inside the box will be the same as on Earth. And either you are traversing that space as measured by them, or you're not.

It's weird.

=

If this is true, what is a time dilation, and how can uniformly moving objects, depending on their 'relative motion' relative you (locality) be expected to show a 'time dilation'. Do we need accelerations at some 'prior time' for that?

Assume that all moving objects, relative you, once had a state in where they first came to be. The state is undefined, a singularity, but as interactions come to exist we get relative motion. Would that make sense? I don't know?

Can you have a relative motion without a acceleration? Depends on your definitions that one, doesn't it?

All uniformly moving objects need some reference frame from where we define a 'motion', and according to relativity we have no 'absolute reference frame' that can give you a 'absolute motion'. It's all relative your reference frame.

What does this thinking do to a 'time dilation'? It states that you arbitrarily can define yourself as differently 'time dilated', simultaneously too, depending on reference frame chosen, doesn't it?

But that will not hold true for 'gravity', only for 'uniform (relative) motion'

=

So, in which reference frame will you actually experience a 'real time dilation' uniformly moving?

Radiation.

Your local frame as expressed relative light. You can measure your 'relative motion' in the blue shift of that light locally.